Of Rites and Rights: An Interview with Asma Jahangir

#72 by arjun_m

++
BACKGROUND BRIEFING BY A SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ON THE
PRESIDENT`S BILATERAL MEETINGS
++

Why don`t you get your laughs watching a sitcom like ``Dharma & Greg`` or ``Everybody loves Raymond`` instead. At least the cast would be better than the ``unnamed senior administration officials`` you are wasting your time on.

But as they say.. to each his own delusions. Ciao!

Stuka #68 arjun #73 Romair #76, HisExcellency #75: You all make reasonable comments on the suggestion I had made in my post #63. I would like to build a bit on these points and then perhaps we may get somewhere (at least in terms of being clear in our own minds) what the india-pakistan issues add up to:

Stuka refers to the ``national interest`` of Pakistan. That I think is the million dollar question, and I would like to extend that to the ``national interest`` of India and of the Kashmiris themselves as well.

From the various responses above, the answer would be one or more of the following:
a. Land
b. Water (rivers flow into pakistan)
c. The rights of Kashmiris
d. Benefits to military (particularly pakistani)

In responding, I would first define ``national interest`` of India and Pakistan as follows: Maximizing the well-being of their respective citizens (current and future).

On a.: I would reject that right away: Land is a significant factor of production only in agrarian societies. The future clearly is for economies that are knowledge-based. The addition of held kashmir to pakistan would do essentially nothing to the per capita income of pakistan.

On b: While this has not been raised as a major reason within pakistan, there is an element of truth here. But only an element, as a look at the map easily tells us. Indus is already free of indian interference, and chenab and sutlej would remain vulnerable to indian interference (I say this based on a cursory check of the map) even if held kashmir became part of pakistan. And if there was indian interference, it would probably be such a life-and-death matter for pakistan that it could result in total war between the two nuclear-armed beggar nations. (If this sounds far-fetched, the world bank itself has predicted that india and pakistan may go to war in the 21st century on this one issue as fresh water demand exceeds supply). A very serious problem, but getting held kashmir is not the solution.

On c: Agreed that this is in the interest of kasmiris. But then, every community has a similar right to greater control over their lives. But that isnt about to happen either in India or in Pakistan. Why then should other interests (e.g. the interest of pakistanis to a peaceful future) be sacrificed for one single community only. Only time will evolve both countries towards ceding more control over their lives to local communities living within their borders.

On d: No one would accept this argument as anything more than an absurdity. Ironically, this is conceptually the same argument as c (if one considers the military to be a community).

So, what then is Pakistan`s, or India`s, (or Kashmiri`s) national interest? The answer is simple: ask yourself what is your own personal interest (prosperity, brighter future for your children and their children and their children and so on)?

Multiply that answer by 1.5 billion, and that how important what you perceive as your personal interest is to the national interest of the current generation living in India, of pakistan, of Kashmiris. All other considerations become insignificant before this overriding national interest: peace, prosperity, for all. And there is no conflict of interest here between India, Pakistan, Kashmiris.

Long post, sorry.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re HE
``And you thought India could take the world for a ride by presenting Kashmir movement as terrorism?``

Any movement that deliberately targets civilians, endorses acid-throwing on girls, and proclaims a dress code to be followed by others is, by definition, a terrorist movement. Whether India exploits that successfully or not does not deduct fro the inherent terrorism in the `jihad` for Kashmir. India`s failing has been its inability, in spite of the 70K troops there, to eradicate this menace while occasionally holding parleys with terror outfits itself.

And I am someone who has long supported, and continute to do so now, the right of plebiscite for ALL of J&K (yes, that includes the misnomer `Azad` Kashmir).

Ref HisExcellency #19

[#14 by arjun_m

Pakistan has already agreed to let Iran-India gas pipeline pass through Pakistani territory. It is India that has refused this proposal.

Clearly, India is only granting those ``favors`` to Pakistan that generate revenue for India but refusing those that generate revenue for Pakistan. Such selfish ``favors`` only suggest that India is as guilty of mixing politics with sports/culture/trade as Pakistan.]

Shell is expanding the LNG terminal on Gujarat coast to import even more gas from Oman, Qatar and such places in the Persian Gulf. When I say ``expand``, I mean to something like one of the larger ones on the planet.

Looks like the Iran-India gas pipeline through Pakistan is more a Pakistani pipedream than a pipeline.

Look on the bright side: that will be $600 million a year that the Pak Army won`t get its hands on. The poor folks of Pakistan haven`t lost anything -- in fact, they would be robbed less.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

This lady seems to genuinely desire peace. If there are some people in Pakistan not bent upon hurting India, Indians should work with them. In this lady`s honor, I wish Pakistan good luck in all its endeavors that are not aimed against India.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

tahmad #63: ``b. If a Kashmiri really cant stand to be part of India, he can migrate to Pakistan`

This is an interesting theory. Would you be willing to apply it to Bangladesh also? As well as to a Shia Iraq dominated by a Sunni minority under Saddam Hussain? Should the Iraqis have migrated?

Do you believe anyone who is occupied should migrate? What if they cannot migrate?

Would a better solution be to not occupy anyone to begin with, and let everyone decide how they want to live?

#63 by tahmed32

Kashmiri Muslims are in a majority in J&K. Under the India Independence Act, majority populations cannot be asked to migrate. This is like British asking Hindus to leave India and migrate to another country if they didn`t want to live as a British colony.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#60 by arjun_m

++
we`re still waiting for you to produce a URL for your claim that Pakistan exports 400million$ of IT(even 130million).
++

Refer to the discussion on state of Education in Pakistan. I had posted a link to the ``Outsourcing Report`` from CIO Magazine conducted in Nov 2002``. In that post, I also reproduced a summary of the ratings (geopolitical risk, market size, weaknesses, strengths, english proficiency). Besides this info, that link also contained market size info for all the profiled countries including Pakistan.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#67 by stuka

I agree with your comments. Waiting Musharraf out of office could be a plausible motivation for India`s decision to go slow on the talks offer.

However, if MMA-Musharraf talks end successfully, then Musharraf will get a 5-year stint as President. In that case, pressure for talks will mount on India because the ``wait-Musharraf-out`` strategy can only be applied in the short-run. It certainly can`t last another 5 years, because of the high nuclear stakes involved in Kashmir.

BTW, what do you think of the sudden challenge raised by Wesley Clark to George Bush? Opinion polls suggest a 3% lead for Clark just 1 week after his announcement to enter Presidential race!